Covert Ops - The Real Story

[Helix]

Well, while digging through the manual and doing some calculations on covert operations I found some very interesting things, which I have already brought to the attention of PATeam two days ago. In the interest of my fingers I will copy / paste the mail I sent to Kal rather than retyping it all:

Hello Kal, it's Helix. I was looking over the manual about covert ops,
and I think there has either been a design overlook in covert ops, or
the manual is wrong.

As it stands now this is the formula stated for covert ops in the manual :
new_stealth = (old stealth - 5 - int(No_of_agents*0.5) )
random(25) + new_stealth - target_alertness - engineering_alert_bonus
must be higher than 1 for the operation to succeed.

Now of note here, is that the chance of success is using the
new_stealth value. When the manual calculates what a person needs to
be immune from covert ops, they are making their calculations based
upon the old stealth value. This is a big oversight, as at the
smallest, the new_stealth value is 7 points lower than the maximum
old_stealth value. For harder operations like Havoc and Information
Blackout the maximum new_stealth ratings are 75 and 78 respectively.
That is a far cry from the assumed 95 maximum stealth value used to
calculate the needs for immunity from covert ops.

If the manual is indeed correct in the fact that the covert op formula
uses the new_stealth value then this means that it is possible to be
immune from havoc ops with security as your number one priority and
not having a single security center. Frankly I dont think it was
intended to have people able to be immune from covert ops without
investing in security centers. In fact even for a resource stealing
operation using only 5 agents, the minimum security centers needed for
immunity is half that stated in the manual.

If the formula is correct, then I propose an immediate change to the
formula. I understand why the new_stealth rating would have been used
in the formula, to make missions with more agents harder to succeed.
Anyways, my proposed suggestion would be to use the [old_stealth -
int((agents - minimum_agents)*0.5)] in place of new_stealth in the
covert op formula. What this new value would do is keep the penalty
for sending more agents, however it would put the maximum stealth
value back in line with what I believe was intended.

Please, if I am correct about the formula, the prudent thing to do
would be to fix it. It is not something that should be said "well we
will change it for next round". Covert Ops were not intended to act
this way, and security was not intended to be so easy. It is therefore
a bug which should be fixed mid round, much the same as when I pointed
out to you the flaw in the unit scans which rendered it possible to
reverse engineer the exact units. That was a flaw in the code which
produced unintended results and was fixed immediately mid-round once
pointed out. I believe that this covert-op situation is exactly the
same.

------- Helix

P.S.

Of course if the manual is wrong about the covert-op formula and it
actually uses the old_stealth rating to calculate a missions success,
then it is a simple manner of correcting that error in the manual.

If you didn't want to read through all of that, basically covert ops are much easier to stop than is indicated in the manual. Which I took as meaning that they are broken (since they aren't working as intended).

If the covert op system is not fixed before the end of the round, here is a little list of what you need to be immune from covert ops :

• 5 agents - Priority 1 + 6% Sec.Cent. ; Priority 2 + 11% SecCent ; Priority 3 + 16% SecCent
• 10 agents - Priority 1 + 5% SecCent ; Priority 2 + 10% SecCent ; Priority 3 + 14% SecCent
• 15 agents - Priority 1 + 4% SecCent ; Priority 2 + 9% SecCent ; Priority 3 + 13% SecCent
• 20 agents - Priority 1 + 2% SecCent ; Priority 2 + 7% SecCent ; Priority 3 + 12% SecCent
• 25 agents - Priority 1 + 1% SecCent ; Priority 2 + 6% SecCent ; Priority 3 + 11% SecCent ; 16% SecCent
• 30 agents - Priority 1 + 0% SecCent ; Priority 2 + 4% SecCent ; Priority 3 + 9% SecCent ; 14% SecCent

Take note here, if you only wish to keep those pesky people from destroying your factories you can be immune without building a single security center. And if you just want to protect your 60 wavedistorters (or amps) you only need to have 1 security center to remain immune.

Hopefully PATeam and Kal will take into consideration the problem, as it allows people to be immune from covert operations with much less than is intended. I did not wish to even have to post this on the forums, however after waiting two days and being seemingly ignored, it is my experience in the past that you get much more attention from PA Team if you make something public knowledge. (The last bug I brought to the attention of PA Team was not fixed until after I posted about it on the forums)


---- Helix

[Remy]

hmmmmmmmmm. i almost never miss a coop. but then again i usually only do rescource transfer

[Kal]

I personally think the whole idea of immunity might be a mistake. I'd prefer to see something liek for each sec centre you build the probability of a covert op suceeding drops by 1%.

so if you have 30 sec centres probaility drops by (1.01)^30 = 1.348 = 34.8%

I'd also have the engineering priorites act as a multiplier along the same lines. This means that anyone can be covertoped, but it can be made very difficult.

But covert op formulae will not be changed in round 13 code, so we will have to wait until round 14 for any changes.

[mist]

i assume that the 'bug' pointed out in the pa wiki still exists as well.

that said, what're your justifications for removing the ability to be immune to covert ops?

[Ultimate Newbie]

hurrah immunity for soveh \o/

evil peoples still trying to covert op me though

[Kal]

Originally Posted by mist

i assume that the 'bug' pointed out in the pa wiki still exists as well.

that said, what're your justifications for removing the ability to be immune to covert ops?

I don;t believe in complete immunity - regardless of how secure a system is, regardless of how well protected a countires boarders are - there is still allways a way in however unlikely it might be.

btw good to have you back posting on forums

[mist]

regardless of how much some of us may thing pa is real life, reality is never a good justification for a poor feature i was hoping for game effects justifications...

[Kal]

Originally Posted by mist

regardless of how much some of us may thing pa is real life, reality is never a good justification for a poor feature i was hoping for game effects justifications...

if immunity is impossible, then it makes covert ops a more valid line of playing - though i'm sure many woud hate that

[noah02]

Originally Posted by mist

regardless of how much some of us may thing pa is real life, reality is never a good justification for a poor feature i was hoping for game effects justifications...

Welcome back

As for cov ops immunity i dont think it should be allowed just from the fact some **** keeps nicking my money and i aint fouund him yet and when i do....
But yes i would like Kals idea of no immunity just really tough to get through.

[mist]

how small would the chance be?

how many planets do you think would covert op the #1 if they wern't immune? either the chance has to be small enough to give them a reasonable chance of surviving hundreds, if not thousands of covertops - making it only useful to massed alliance 'attacks' or the leading planet will get trashed through no fault of their own.

[Kal]

well would you could do is make immunity imposisble to gaurantee, but possible - for example when you get covert oped at the moment your alertness rises - if you were covertopeed enough it could make you immune, but it would not be posisble to be immune normally - perhaps that is an option.

[MAdnRisKy]

Originally Posted by Kal

well would you could do is make immunity imposisble to gaurantee, but possible - for example when you get covert oped at the moment your alertness rises - if you were covertopeed enough it could make you immune, but it would not be posisble to be immune normally - perhaps that is an option.

already seeing an abuse function there, unless you make it that alliances can't co-op their own...

[Kal]

alliances allreayd cna;t covert-op their own..

[MAdnRisKy]

Originally Posted by Kal

alliances allreayd cna;t covert-op their own..

you're wrong

[Kal]

Originally Posted by MAdnRisKy

you're wrong

I just tried to covert op an alliance member:

You may not target allied planets with covert ops

[mens]

i hope you guys haven't forgotten r10 lategame...
the big planets didn't have any factories left.
and couldn't spend their res before those were taken away aswell.

[mist]

and getting a couple of people to run cov-op planets to keep your ratings up would be way beyond the abilities of anyone to organise

-mist

[MAdnRisKy]

Originally Posted by Kal

I just tried to covert op an alliance member:

You may not target allied planets with covert ops

hmm, cos i just did it :/

[edit] exiled, i lie [/edit]

[Helix]

I dont think that immunity is necessarily a bad thing, but I think that to be immune you should have to invest as heavily in security centers as say a scanner would invest in wave amps. You would have to devote 80% of your constructions to security centers. Now of course this is much easier to do if you only build 20 constructions and call it quits, however that player then misses out on the benefits of wave amps, wave distorters, finance centers and the lot.

As it is, immunity is by far much too easy (you really shouldn't be able to be immune from some covert ops with 0 security centers or with no security on engineering priority, which atm you can), I think if the system worked as intended it wouldn't be quite so bad, though I still think that immunity is too easy with the intended system as well.